News and Insights

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Curabitur sit amet sem id nisi porta rutrum.

Pamela Smith vs. Hyatt Regency And New Hampshire Insurance Company

Hyatt Regency and New Hampshire Insurance Company Pamela Smith WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAPAMELA SMITH, Applicant,vs.HYATT REGENCY and NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.Case No. ADJ6786767OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REMOVAL            Defendant seeks reconsideration of the “Findings and Order; Order Rescinding Submission; Order to Develop the Record” (hereinafter F&O), issued July 8, 2011, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered that the matter required further development of the record. The WCJ found that applicant claims a cumulative trauma injury to her back during the period September 11, 1978 through April 28, 2009, while employed as a pastry chef with earnings of $856.39 per week. The WCJ further found that defendants had paid $37,006.00 as temporary disability from April 29, 2009 through October 27, 2010, at the rate of $570.93 per week. The WCJ specifically found that the “reports and opinions of Dr. Nguyen and Dr. Kaplan were not substantial evidence.” In addition, the parties were “directed to either agree on the use of a vocational expert to undertake and prepare a formal Job Analysis, with both Applicant and an employer representative present at the job site, or shall notify this Judge that they cannot agree on the identity of an expert so that this Judge may appoint one.”            Defendant contends that the WCJ erred by failing to issue a decision arguing that the medical reports of Paul Kaplan, M.D., constituted substantial evidence supporting an order “that the applicant take nothing by reason of her application on file.” Defendant further contends that applicant failed to meet her burden of proof and therefore should be denied any claim for benefits. Applicant filed an answer. ,             In the Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration (Report), the WCJ noted at page 2: “The parties sought a QME Panel


Get exclusive access to in-debt interviews.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor.

Recent Article

Recent Article

Share Article

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *